D
daniel1212
Guest
- Thread starter
- #101
So simple unity itself is not the goal, but a certain kind of unity (like faith) is, to the glory of God. While born again evangelicals enjoy a unique but Biblical spiritual unity, and offer the most superior unity, via the freedom to be fully persuaded as they search the Scriptures. Yet outside of those who deviate from the essentials, which problem Rome never has prevented either, the principle Protestant doctrines have a downside, that of souls going to a different pasture (yet under the great Shepard), somewhat sadly resulting in a diversity of denominations.
Meanwhile, Rome's boast of unity must be that of her official Catholic unity in doctrine, yet like Protestants, those whom she counts as members possess a diversity of opinions (not including Sedevacantists types), and are even are allowed to disagree even in some quite substantial things without suffering any real discipline (Teddy Kennedy is still a Catholic). And while the aforementioned Protestants basically are unified in at least their two classic principle doctrines, the practical unity of Rome is that they by and large agree that Rome is the place to be, and that she and or their merits will gain them eternal life, while their overall lack of evidence of regeneration is easily seen. I thus do not see either the disunity of Protestantism nor the kind of unity of Rome as arguments against the principle doctrines of the former. Though history sadly tells of the consequences of implicit trust in man's autocratic authority, yet this kind of submission is what Catholic apologists would require of every modern Berean today.
And although spiritual liberty is more risky than implicit submission to authority if implicit unity is one's goal, the allowance of the former does not mean that absolute unity is not to be our goal – it is (1Cor. 1:10) – but it is better to have unity in the things that bring Biblical spiritual life both now and forever, though it be with a remnant, than to be unified with multitudes in error thereof. “For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion” (Eccl. 9:4).
Meanwhile, Rome's boast of unity must be that of her official Catholic unity in doctrine, yet like Protestants, those whom she counts as members possess a diversity of opinions (not including Sedevacantists types), and are even are allowed to disagree even in some quite substantial things without suffering any real discipline (Teddy Kennedy is still a Catholic). And while the aforementioned Protestants basically are unified in at least their two classic principle doctrines, the practical unity of Rome is that they by and large agree that Rome is the place to be, and that she and or their merits will gain them eternal life, while their overall lack of evidence of regeneration is easily seen. I thus do not see either the disunity of Protestantism nor the kind of unity of Rome as arguments against the principle doctrines of the former. Though history sadly tells of the consequences of implicit trust in man's autocratic authority, yet this kind of submission is what Catholic apologists would require of every modern Berean today.
And although spiritual liberty is more risky than implicit submission to authority if implicit unity is one's goal, the allowance of the former does not mean that absolute unity is not to be our goal – it is (1Cor. 1:10) – but it is better to have unity in the things that bring Biblical spiritual life both now and forever, though it be with a remnant, than to be unified with multitudes in error thereof. “For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion” (Eccl. 9:4).